mercredi, 22 octobre 2014

Decoding Erdogan’s shift on IS

The Turkish Parliament vote on Thursday authorizing the government to send troops across the border into Iraq and Syria is a historical reversal of the legacy of Kemal Ataturk that the country would never again get entangled with the Muslim Middle East.

Ankara has trotted out various reasons to justify its U-turn over Turkey’s role in the fight against the Islamic State [IS]. The thrust of the reasoning is that Turkey is hell bent on fighting terrorism. But Turkish motives are highly suspect.

The US Vice-President Joe Biden said in a speech at Harvard University on Thursday that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan is genuinely repentant about Turkey’s covert support for the IS in the recent years. Biden was inclined to forgive Erdogan for past sins and was delighted that Turkey would now allow the US to use its military bases for launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, which indeed is a ‘game changer’ of sorts for the American military operations. Biden gave the impression that born-again Erdogan is raring to go against the IS.

But Erdogan himself says his real reason is that his pious heart bleeds at the sight of the carnage and human suffering in Iraq and Syria and he cannot stand by idly.

Both Biden and Erdogan are hundred-pound gorillas in the world of politics. What could be Erdogan’s calculus like?

One thing can be said at the outset, namely, Erdogan has been expounding ‘neo-Ottomanism’, harking back to Istanbul’s destiny as the capital of the Muslim Middle East and north Africa. The ruins of Ottoman citadels as far away as Kenya in east Africa testify to that glorious past.

Baghdad, Cairo and Damascus have been systematically ravaged and weakened in the past decade, thanks to a combination of covert US regional regional strategies and the folly of the Gulf countries (especially Saudi Arabia) to serve in their self-interests as America’s poodles in regional politics. Suffice to say, there is no Arab power today that can pretend to be capable of playing a leadership role in its region.

The Arabs are down on their knees. At any rate, Turks have always considered the Gulf Arabs as a lower form of life. Thus, Erdogan could be sensing that Turkey’s hour of reckoning has come as by far the most powerful Sunni Muslim country.

Tactically, of course, Turkey stands to gain by occupying the Kurdish homelands in northern Iraq and Syria from where the PKK separatists operated and bled Turkey. Turkey is also dead against the formation of any Kurdish entities in Iraq and Syria.

But beyond all that comes another question — Turkey’s expansionist dreams. Turkey is an ‘unsatiated’ regional power. Its present borders were thrust upon it by Imperial Britain and France. But it has no scope to expand toward the Balkans or Greece.

But Erdogan would have heard the tantalizing remark by President Barack Obama in a recent interview with Tom Friedman that the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 is unraveling. Turkey has never reconciled with the loss of territory in Iraq and Syria following the Anglo-French settlement.

Particularly galling has been the loss of territory under the Treaty of Sevres (1920) and the developments that immediately followed — Britain denying the oil-rich regions of present-day northern Iraq from beyond Mosul (which is now under IS control) to be part of the Turkish state. Britain insisted that those regions (where oil was stuck in the early 1920s) should be part of the newly-created state of Iraq (so that they remained under British control, of course).

If anyone is interested in reading up on the breathtaking historical background to the momentous developments unfolding in the Middle East today on the pretext of the fight against the Islamic State, I would recommend the brilliant book (which I just finished reading a second time) by David Fromkin titled “A Peace to End All Peace.”

Indeed, the pitiless vultures have begun circling in the skies above the Levant and Mesopotamia to pick on the carcasses that will be littered on those bleached lands as the US-led fight against the IS runs its course.

But how much share will the US and Britain concede to Turkey? In the 1920s, the US was a bystander while Britain dictated the terms to Turkey. Today what is unfolding is an Anglo-American enterprise and they also have an agenda of their own. Then, there are the Kurds who are close to Israel.

And unlike in the early 1920s, when the Bolsheviks were preoccupied at home — it was the Soviets who disclosed the very existence of the top secret Sykes-Picot pact (1916) — Russia has returned to the Middle East.

Besides, will the Arabs countries countenance the Turkish surge into Sunni Arab territories — on whatever pretext? The humiliating memory of the despotic Ottoman rule still rankles, especially in Saudi Arabia. Baghdad has already voiced protest. So has Syria. How long will Cairo and Riyadh keep silent? Again, how can Turkey’s historical rival, Iran, stand back and watch Erdogan ordering troops to occupy territoriee in its neighborhood?

The interplay of these factors becomes hugely relevant. For the present, though, it pleases Washington to no end that Turkey has followed the laudable example of Australia and is joining the fight against the IS. No doubt, militarily, Turkey will be a strategic asset for the US operations, but politically it can become a liability tomorrow.

Erdogan has given shelter to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership that was evicted recently by Qatar (under Saudi pressure.) Erdogan still probably hopes that if there is a political transition in Syria, Brothers have a fighting chance to capture power.

But then, the Brothers are the sworn enemies of the Egyptian regime. They happen to pose an existential threat to the autocratic Gulf monarchies — and Jordan. It is unclear how far Obama can travel with Erdogan once the latter begins pushing the envelope on the democratic transformation of the Muslim Middle East (Arab Spring), starting with Syria. All in all, Turkey’s entry into the US-led war against the islamic State introduces yet another contradiction.